WASHINGTON – Republicans blocked a last-ditch effort in the Senate to lift the military's ban on openly gay troops on Thursday, dealing a major blow to gay rights groups and making it unlikely Congress could repeal "don't ask, don't tell" any time soon.

The 57-40 vote fell three short of the 60 needed to overcome procedural hurdles to lift the 17-year-old ban. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the lone Republican voting to advance the bill, and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the only Democrat to vote against it. *Continues*

Screw the bigots. Take it to the courts so the Senate can choke on their homophobia, while gay service people can finally be free in an armed services that is sworn to free everyone else.

If you take it to the courts, it's a pretty good bet you're going to lose. Especially with the current make-up of the USSC.

Also, read this article carefully. The vote here was not about whether or not to repeal DADT. The vote was about whether to have a vote (meaning end the filabuster) on DADT (that was not the only issue). The Repubs who were willing to go along with this said they were upset because they "wanted more time to negotiate the process of the voting.”. But, they did not even vote on the bill.

WTF is the "process of voting"? I don't know, exactly, but I suspect it means they were deciding either what horse trades were made or which Senators would not vote for it to avoid being chastised over it come election day and which Senators would vote for it in their stead. Those kind of games get played all the time.

If the Dems want to play hard ball with this, they will stick the repeal of DADT as a provision in every military appropriations bill going forward and dare the Repubs to veto it.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

Yes, this was an attempt to move past the Republicans Filibuster which effectively derailed the attempt to repeal DADT before. Now, with this vote missing the mark, the Republicans have effectively thwarted the Defense Authorization Bill, to which the DADT repeal language was attached.

It's despicable. They're trying to limp through the lame duck session so that when they seat their majority in the House, they can act the ass even more so than they presently have.

I disagree that taking this to the courts would be a mistake. Even the USSC has to realize that it's a matter of Constitutionality and even though they've demonstrated themselves to rule through partisan bias and as such are demonstrably corrupt, even SCotUS has to follow the letter of the Constitution or publicly demonstrate they're reprehensible unfitness as Jurists.

A lot of anger and self righteousness in that post, but not a lot of reality. The sad reality is that the Constitution is not nearly as clear on issues of equal protection as you imply. And, a jurist ruling differently then you would like does not mean they are automatically partisan. Finally, current law and Constitutional interpretation does not seem to favor the argument that prohibiting gays to serve openly in the military is any kind of violation. Obviously you have no idea how a court will rule until you give them the chance, but the Roberts Court has not, to date, shown any indication to take an expansive reading of the Constitution.

Personally, I think it's immoral to treat people differently based on random classifications such as race or sexuality, or even non-random classifications such as gender. However, my view of morality and the law are not one and the same, much as I wish otherwise.

This issue is going to have to go through the legislative process, and the discrimination, as insidious as it is, will continue on for the meantime.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

The great thing about a free country is, you're permitted to judge my opinions as you see fit. As I am afforded the right to judge yours.
And given that one Judge has already determined DADT is unConstitutional as a lower court Jurist, as well as the court in California ruling on the same grounds when overturning Prop8 with regard to gay's right to marry, the USSC would set a poor example as a higher court to determine the Constitution affords no avenue for repeal of DADT based on equal protection.

So, if coming down on the side of equal protection, and freedom for all Americans because gays are the last community to suffer legal discrimination, is considered self-rightousness in your world so be it. If my opinion is considered to reflect anger regarding lawful discrimination, while bigots in power declare it's their legal right to violate the Constitution because cult tradition and the will of their equally bigoted and often homophobic base pulls their strings so that they can more easily excuse their speaking the same, when they declare American military isn't ready for full on integration of gays and straights in uniform in as much as gays are entitled to be free of the closet the armed services forces them into, you better believe there's cause to be angry.

When a country boasts itself to be the greatest nation on earth, made so in part because that freedom is by letter of law, and the Legislative branch takes it upon itself to represent that freedom in this country is to be afforded to straights only, while gays are less so because it's been so from, as one attorney said when presenting his case in California recently arguing for repeal of gay's right to marry, "time immemorial" , there's cause to be angry. Because the Legislative branch is representative of we the people. Which since time immemorial at the inception of this country, included homosexuals! Who thus far are not receiving fair and equal representation by a select few empowered to pass the bills that become the laws that say they're less than equal to straight citizens.

IF that's self-righteous in your world, I suggest you pick up a dictionary and seek out the difference between opinion and that of being intolerant of others opinion. Because bigotry and homophobia are immoral and if opposing that is considered self-righteous, so be it. I have been and shall ever be intolerant of bigots and homophobes.

And I shall always be amused by those who think it's wrong, and worthy of snide criticism, to be angry when bigots and homophobes attempt to write their dysfunctional anti-social intolerance into the laws of the land.

(09-12-2010 08:55 PM)gamutman Wrote: ProfMTH did a video on this issue where he demonstrates with a very strong argument that the SCOTUS would probably vote to repeal DADT 5-4 with Kennedy being the decider.

Quote:The great thing about a free country is, you're permitted to judge my opinions as you see fit. As I am afforded the right to judge yours.

And the great thing about the internet is you can hurl epitaphs at people anonymously. So what?

Quote:And given that one Judge has already determined DADT is unConstitutional as a lower court Jurist, as well as the court in California ruling on the same grounds when overturning Prop8 with regard to gay's right to marry, the USSC would set a poor example as a higher court to determine the Constitution affords no avenue for repeal of DADT based on equal protection.

The "poor example" comment is a personal opinion so I can't comment on that, beyond saying one person's poor example is another person's exalted example. However, what a lower court does has zero bearing on the Supreme Court of the United States. Lower court judges get over turned all the time, and the 9th Circuit (which covers California) is the most over turned Court of Appeals in the country.

Quote:So, if coming down on the side of equal protection, and freedom for all Americans because gays are the last community to suffer legal discrimination, is considered self-rightousness in your world so be it. If my opinion is considered to reflect anger regarding lawful discrimination, while bigots in power declare it's their legal right to violate the Constitution because cult tradition and the will of their equally bigoted and often homophobic base pulls their strings so that they can more easily excuse their speaking the same, when they declare American military isn't ready for full on integration of gays and straights in uniform in as much as gays are entitled to be free of the closet the armed services forces them into, you better believe there's cause to be angry.

When a country boasts itself to be the greatest nation on earth, made so in part because that freedom is by letter of law, and the Legislative branch takes it upon itself to represent that freedom in this country is to be afforded to straights only, while gays are less so because it's been so from, as one attorney said when presenting his case in California recently arguing for repeal of gay's right to marry, "time immemorial" , there's cause to be angry. Because the Legislative branch is representative of we the people. Which since time immemorial at the inception of this country, included homosexuals! Who thus far are not receiving fair and equal representation by a select few empowered to pass the bills that become the laws that say they're less than equal to straight citizens.

Few things to address here.

First, personally, I'm against DADT and think gays should be able to serve openly in the military. I also fully support gay marriage. Finally, my own, and again - personal, view, is that equal protection means that everyone is treated equally. Those are just my opinions, though, but that does not make them law. Those opinions impact how I vote and whom I vote for but they do not change reality. And, my "self righteous" comment had nothing to do with where you come out on the issue.

Second, you keep making this comment about "violating the Constitution". Based on current juris prudence, it does not violate the Constitution. The US Constitution is not some sacred text that has higher meaning. It is a framework agreement that means what 9 Justices say it means at a given moment in time, and the make up of the court greatly influences the outcome of decisions.

Quote:IF that's self-righteous in your world, I suggest you pick up a dictionary and seek out the difference between opinion and that of being intolerant of others opinion.

Irony, this is GassyKitten. Gassykitten, meet my good friend Irony.

gamutman

Quote:ProfMTH did a video on this issue where he demonstrates with a very strong argument that the SCOTUS would probably vote to repeal DADT 5-4 with Kennedy being the decider.

Whether or not the Court should over turn DADT is not really the point. The point is that, with the current make up of the Court, given some of their other rulings, it seems highly unlikley. Of course it is always possible as the Supreme Court will from time to time completely surprise people and find just enough votes to swing a decision a direction that no one expected. It has certainly happened over the course of the nations history. However, given this court, I'd say it is a real long shot and gays are better served trying to win this through the legislative process.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost